Re: A suggested tag

Carl Morris (msftrncs@htcnet.com)
Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:15:32 -0500


Message-Id: <199704130428.XAA04867@inet.htcnet.com>
From: "Carl Morris" <msftrncs@htcnet.com>
To: "WWW HTML List" <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: A suggested tag
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:15:32 -0500

>My favorite feature of &shy; is how unreadable it makes
>doc&shy;u&shy;ments that use them in browsers that don't recognize the
>entity. *If* this is something that was desireable to use as markup, then
>it should be a tag, not an entity. I tend to think that this is something
>the renderer of the document (i.e., browser) could deal with. There
>doesn't need to be a shared dictionary or anything. It uses my dictionary
>on my machine; I don't care what hyphens you see. :-)

The problem is that who ever devised enities didn't stop to think about
backwards support or forwards support, what ever.  An enity should have
been designated as "&name;" only, no options.  It then should have been
documented that you don't support "name" enity, skip it!  No, now we
support "some test&name and some more text"... the browser can't guess
that
you mistakenly entered an ampersand or an enity, it it matches an enity
name it assumes enity, if not it assumes you meant an ampersand.  This is
wrong in my opinion, ampersands should always be done with &amp; (or what
ever, I seldom use any) and browsers should never display an ampersand
directly...

But hindsight is 20/20...